I didn't limit "enthusiast" to LN2 guys. if you read my reply i mentioned people in Collage, new jobs etc who aren't going to buy $1000 cpu's.
yeah. K series is fine but i doubt the limited multipliers can just be used top push the cpu more than 400-600mhz .DrWho said, SB overclocking isn't limited but has a different way of overclocking . well, now Anand is saying something else.
i
SourceToday's statement also says of the risk factors, "Intel is in the process of transitioning to its next generation of products on 32nm, and there could be execution issues ... including product defects and ... lower than anticipated manufacturing yields".
Wasn't going to believe the inquirer, but I clicked on their source link and indeed it comes from Intel:
http://newsroom.intel.com/community/...w-expectations
I highly doubt they'll have those issues just because they already have current 32nm hex-cores.
Last edited by richierich; 08-28-2010 at 04:17 AM.
You should realize Intel's business model is not sustained by high-performance, high profit margin components, but by decades old legacy support in hardware.
Releasing information on Sandy-bridge is not some brilliant tactical/strategic maneuver. Sandy Bridge is here. Release is just a few months away. Bulldozer release is probably at least a year.
Have you had a real conversation with JF-AMD? Read his posts? "Can't talk about it/Don't know about it/Customers care only about performance&wattage." Trying to coax information from this man is harder than getting Glenn Beck to admit he needs round the clock psychiatry.
any one know what happened to the rumor that there was specific silicon for "transcoding" ?
Can't say these numbers are convincing me to upgrade.
This performance jump is good enough, actually more than enough to convince many of those who are using 45nm CPUs now. But it won't have the WOW-convincing-effect on performance before the high-end hits the market later, and it's natural of course.
These mainstream CPUs will be really convincing for those who want a cool and power efficient 32nm CPU, but don't need (don't want to spend 0n) high-end 32nm 6-core+.
Last edited by Sam_oslo; 08-28-2010 at 05:48 AM.
► ASUS P8P67 Deluxe (BIOS 1305)
► 2600K @4.5GHz 1.27v , 1 hour Prime
► Silver Arrow , push/pull
► 2x2GB Crucial 1066MHz CL7 ECC @1600MHz CL9 1.51v
► GTX560 GB OC @910/2400 0.987v
► Crucial C300 v006 64GB OS-disk + F3 1TB + 400MB RAMDisk
► CM Storm Scout + Corsair HX 1000W
+
► EVGA SR-2 , A50
► 2 x Xeon X5650 @3.86GHz(203x19) 1.20v
► Megahalem + Silver Arrow , push/pull
► 3x2GB Corsair XMS3 1600 CL7 + 3x4GB G.SKILL Trident 1600 CL7 = 18GB @1624 7-8-7-20 1.65v
► XFX GTX 295 @650/1200/1402
► Crucial C300 v006 64GB OS-disk + F3 1TB + 2GB RAMDisk
► SilverStone Fortress FT01 + Corsair AX 1200W
Hmmm, not convinced enough to switch from the current crop of i7's but for the average user it's a convincing upgrade. And since were on xtremesystems, we'll just disregard the average user stuff hehe
Newbie Cruncher
OC crowd is very very tiny as a % of intel business. Intel traditionally allowed flexibility here because this crowd was vocal and it was useful to help drum up online buzz. AMD can't seem to get their act together, so dealing with issues associated with allowing people to muck around with ever more sensitive voltages and other parameters probably isn't as appealing to Intel.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
► ASUS P8P67 Deluxe (BIOS 1305)
► 2600K @4.5GHz 1.27v , 1 hour Prime
► Silver Arrow , push/pull
► 2x2GB Crucial 1066MHz CL7 ECC @1600MHz CL9 1.51v
► GTX560 GB OC @910/2400 0.987v
► Crucial C300 v006 64GB OS-disk + F3 1TB + 400MB RAMDisk
► CM Storm Scout + Corsair HX 1000W
+
► EVGA SR-2 , A50
► 2 x Xeon X5650 @3.86GHz(203x19) 1.20v
► Megahalem + Silver Arrow , push/pull
► 3x2GB Corsair XMS3 1600 CL7 + 3x4GB G.SKILL Trident 1600 CL7 = 18GB @1624 7-8-7-20 1.65v
► XFX GTX 295 @650/1200/1402
► Crucial C300 v006 64GB OS-disk + F3 1TB + 2GB RAMDisk
► SilverStone Fortress FT01 + Corsair AX 1200W
I've been going through the numbers, and it's looking something like this..
The non-HT SB @ 3.1ghz is 25% faster than the 2.93Ghz core i5 760 in tedts that SHOULD be using all cores, or close to, and keep the 760 down at 2.93. If Freq-perf scaling was 100% that makes the tested part 18% faster clk/clk in these tests
Comparing the HT enabled chip to Anand's Bench results in the same manor using a Core i7 870, which should be running at either 3.06Ghz or 3.2 with these 4+thread benches is around 13%-17% faster clk /clk. This indicates HT performance scaling is either no better, or lower than Lynnfield, but it's hard to say when you're attempting to guess the frequency with each benchmark.
If these tests were really done with Turbo switched off, it's an impressive IPC increase. and some of the induvidual app increases are ridiculous. (Like Photoshop CS4) Especially on what we assume to be the same base architecture.
Very keen to hear the details of the Uarch.
Regarding HT.. Is it possible the efficiency increases achieved have left less room for HT?
Ahhhh, the Inq, back to their old ways....
AMD says they can't make 32 nm processors and will hurt revenues:
SourcesWe rely on GF to manufacture some of our products, and if GF is unable to manufacture our products on a timely basis and on competitive process technologies or to meet our capacity requirements, our business could be materially adversely affected.
nVidia says they cannot transistion to new technologies and will hurt revenue:
SourceThe inability by us or our third-party manufacturers to effectively and efficiently transition to new manufacturing process technologies may adversely affect our operating results and our gross margin
Every quarterly report has risk statements, it is the legal part necessitated by the SEC for every company to inform shareholders of risks to the company that will affect their financial performance.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
Noticed how they didn't include AMD X6 performance on Cinebench 11.5 multiCPU score?
Antec Three Hundred + Basiq 550W Modular
Asrock 890GX Extreme3 bios 2.42B
1055T CCBBE CB 1013CPDW at 3800@1.4125V + Mugen 2 rev.B push/pull with GT 1850 + MX-3
G.Skill 4 GB DDR3-1600 F3-12800CL7D-4GBECO at 1806-7-9-7-24-1T, NB at 2710@1.2750V
MSI R5770-PMD1G 1GB at 945/1375
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB HD103SJ SATA2
Samsung Spinpoint T166 HD501LJ 500GB SATA2
Replaced case fans with Xilence Red Wings
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
they must be saving lots of money by locking the cheaper CPUs multiplier (and in this case killing the possibilities to modify the clock speed), if they want to charge for "auto OC" fine, but I like to have the possibilities to do a fine tuning on the cpu settings that I buy, and to work at the max speed this piece of hardware can (if this means no warranty, less durability, more power usage, untested regimes of operation, I have no problem in accepting these risks) and I find it convenient, and that's not the way it comes from the factory, for many reasons, by their point of view I understand, they want to maximize even more their profits, but if it's true that 95% of the users of cheap CPUs don't care, why bother locking the multiplier? they want this 5% to pay an extra just because they care and know how to make a better use of the CPU adjustment settings? if making OC possible had a
great cost, in that specific part, I wouldn't see a problem,
Bookmarks